2013-01-03 0:22, Markus Scherer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi <mailto:jkorp...@cs.tut.fi>> wrote:Then again, Latin is no different from Cyrillic, Greek, or Arabic, for example, in this respect. In an apparent attempt to save space, the script names are also links to basic blocks of characters for the scripts. This would not be my cup of tea, but I can well understand the reasoning behind this. Using “Basic Latin” etc. as lower-level items would have been more logical here, but not necessarily more practical. The page has been modified to add an alias for Basic Latin (ASCII) under the Latin heading.
I can see that, but I don’t think it’s an improvement. It puts the Latin script in a special status. And it makes both “Latin” and “Basic Latin (ASCII)” links to the same page, violating fundamental accessibility principles: duplicate links should be avoided, and when they can’t be avoided, they should have exactly the same link texts.
Yucca
